march 28, 2017 self-driving cars: levels of automation
TRANSCRIPT
* Please Note: External links included in this compilation were functional at the time of its creation but are not maintained thereafter.
This hearing compilation was prepared by the Homeland Security Digital Library, Naval Postgraduate School, Center for Homeland Defense and Security.
March 28, 2017
Self-Driving Cars: Levels of Automation Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection, Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session
HEARING CONTENTS: Member Statements
Greg Walden View Statement Robert E. Latta View Statement
Witnesses
Bill Gouse Director of Federal Programs SAE International View Testimony
Jeff Klei President of Continental Automotive Systems Continental AG, North America View Testimony
Kay Stepper Vice President for Automated Driving and Driver Assistance Systems Robert Bosch LLC View Testimony
* Please Note: External links included in this compilation were functional at the time of its creation but are not maintained thereafter.
This hearing compilation was prepared by the Homeland Security Digital Library, Naval Postgraduate School, Center for Homeland Defense and Security.
David Zuby Executive Vice President and Chief Research Officer Insurance Institute for Highway Safety View Testimony
Available Webcast(s)*: Watch Full Hearing
Compiled From*:
https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings-and-votes/hearings/self-driving-cars-levels-automation
Opening Statement of Chairman Greg Walden Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
Hearing on “Self-Driving Cars: Levels of Automation” March 28, 2017
(As prepared for delivery)
Following years of declining traffic fatalities, there has been a sharp rise in vehicle-related deaths over the past two years. According to early estimates, over 40,000 people lost their lives on our nation’s roads last year, marking a six percent increase from 2015. In Oregon, 2016 was the deadliest year on the roads in more than a decade, up 20 percent from the year before. These are sobering numbers. The development of self-driving cars could be a solution to this uptick in danger facing the driving public. The main question is: how do we get there? Last month, this subcommittee examined how automakers and other entities are testing self-driving cars and preparing this innovative safety technology for commercial deployment. Just about everyone concedes that fully self-driving cars are still years away from getting into the hands of consumers; but, that has not stopped the automotive industry from laying the foundation for complete vehicle autonomy. Today, many cars on the market are equipped with active safety features or semi-autonomous driving systems. These systems have the potential to keep a vehicle within its designated lane; accelerate to pass another vehicle; change lanes; brake; and park – all without the input of a human driver. These advanced driver -assistance systems or crash-avoidance technologies represent the building blocks to a fully self-driving car. Gradually allowing the vehicle to perform parts of the driving task absent human control means that vehicles are steadily learning how to operate alone and consumers are progressively becoming more familiar and more comfortable with automated driving systems. The advancement of driver assistance systems over the last decade is already demonstrating this progression, as this technology is minimizing crashes, reducing injuries, and decreasing insurance claims. In recognition of the safety benefits provided by these systems, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
has begun work to formally incorporate many of these technologies into its 5-Star Safety Ratings program. Today’s hearing will look more closely at many of the advanced driver assistance systems and crash avoidance technologies on the road. Our witnesses will also help us to understand the different levels of driving automation; how these technologies are improving safety; and how the development of driver assistance systems and technologies is paving the way for fully self-driving cars. We often say that the development of self-driving cars is a life-saving endeavor. Following a devastating year on our nation’s roads, this could not be truer now. I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging discussion on the levels of driving automation and how advanced driver assistance systems can lead us to a future of full vehicle autonomy.
Opening Statement of the Honorable Robert E. Latta Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
Hearing on “Self-Driving Vehicles: Levels of Automation” March 28, 2017
(As prepared for delivery)
Good morning. Last month, this Subcommittee examined how automakers and other entities are testing self-driving vehicles and preparing for the deployment of this life-saving technology. While projections for the deployment of self-driving vehicles remain years out, advanced driver assistance systems that offer semi-autonomous driving capabilities are entering the marketplace today. Advanced driver assistance systems are crash avoidance technologies that can protect drivers, reduce crashes, and enhance the convenience of driving. “Forward Collision Warning,” “Blind Spot Detection,” and “Lane Departure Warning” are examples of advanced driver assistance systems. These systems help drivers make safer decisions on the road by providing real-time information about surrounding roadway activity. The driver can receive this information through audible tones, steering wheel vibrations, or small flashing lights on side mirrors, alerting the driver to potential safety hazards on the road. Increasingly, advanced driver assistance systems now entering the market are capable of taking a more active role in the driving task. Innovative systems such as “Automatic Emergency Braking” and “Lane Departure Prevention” can temporarily take control over parts of the vehicle’s critical safety functions such as braking or steering. This can occur by the system either applying the brakes without input from the driver or steering the vehicle back into marked lanes following unintended drifting. Automakers and equipment suppliers have announced additional innovative driver assistance systems that are currently in line for deployment. “Traffic jam assist” can take control of a vehicle’s functions in low-speed, stop and go traffic. “Autonomous valet parking” can park itself and retrieve itself when summoned by the owner. And, “highway autopilot with lane changing” is being developed to change lanes and pass other vehicles without the input of a human driver. The deployment of advanced driver assistance systems is demonstrating significant safety benefits across the country. Studies are showing that advanced driver
assistance systems and crash avoidance technologies are reducing crashes, roadway injuries, and insurance claims. Advanced driver assistance systems are also an essential part in laying the groundwork for the deployment of fully self-driving vehicles. Through technological advancements by manufacturers and equipment suppliers, basic driver assistance systems are taking on more advanced capabilities that assume greater control of the vehicle’s critical safety functions throughout a driving trip. The progression of these technologies is incrementally removing the human driver from the driving task and paving the way to full autonomy. To provide consistency in the development of driver assistance safety technologies, standards-setting organization, SAE (S-A-E) International, developed a classification system that defines six different levels of driving automation. SAE’s levels of automation establish the general scope of the driver assistance system and the role of the human driver in vehicles taking on increasing autonomous driving capabilities. The levels span from a vehicle with no automation all the way to a vehicle with full automation or a fully self-driving vehicle. Last September, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted SAE’s levels of automation for its own use in its Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. As we discuss the levels of vehicle automation today, I look forward to learning more about the capabilities of advanced driver assistance systems currently on the market and how these technologies are increasing vehicle safety and protecting America’s motorists. I look forward to examining how these systems are informing the development of fully self-driving vehicles and how the auto industry is working to make these systems available across all models and fleets. I also look forward to hearing from witnesses about how consumers are adopting these technologies and how they are helping to build consumers’ confidence in automated driving systems.
1
United States House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
Self-Driving Cars: Levels of Automation Hearing
March 28, 2017
Statement of SAE International
S. William Gouse, Director, Federal Program Development
Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, SAE
International thanks you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the hearing: “Self-Driving Cars:
Levels of Automation”.
SAE International is a global society founded in 1905 with more than 140,000 engineers, scientists,
related technical experts, and students, in over 100 countries, in the aerospace, automotive, motorcycle,
commercial, construction, agricultural and specialized vehicles industries. Some notable members were
aviation and automotive pioneers Orville Wright, Henry Ford, Amelia Earhart, and Ransom Olds, and
celebrities such as Andy Granatelli and Jay Leno. SAE members from government, academia, and
industry have testified to this subcommittee at previous hearings.
SAE’s core competencies are voluntary consensus standards development with nearly 30,000 experts
across the globe contributing to a continually growing standards portfolio of over 10,000 active and
25,000 historical standards used to increase safety, performance, quality, productivity of personal
commercial transportation services while optimizing cost of products and product-life cycles. SAE holds
2
dozens of conferences and symposia, including the Government Industry meeting held in January in
conjunction with the Washington Auto Show and our World Congress next month in Detroit. These
events, plus other mutually beneficial government/industry academic networking opportunities provide
information for the formation of sound public policy positions and affiliated programs, products and
services that add value and encourage innovation.
SAE standards are referenced in government procurement documents, recommendations, guidelines, and
in regulations issued by the US Department of Transportation (US DOT), US Environmental Protection
Agency, US Department of Energy, the National Transportation Safety Board, in regulations in our
states, commonwealths, and inhabited territories. In addition, SAE standards are used internationally, in
Canada, elsewhere in the Americas, overseas and by the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe. SAE believes that incorporating voluntary consensus standards by reference as directed in the
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act and in Office of Management and Budget Circular-
A119 improves the efficiency and effectiveness of government (whether a Federal, state, municipal
body, or global harmonization activity), saving time and money, while increasing the efficacy of policy,
legislation, and/or regulation. This is critical in order to respond to the policy or regulatory needs
brought about by rapid technology developments. These developments are progressing significantly
faster, potentially orders of magnitude faster, than the regulatory process. In addition, the
competitiveness of adopting organizations’ products and services is increased in the global marketplace
because of the higher quality, value, and customer confidence achieved through conformity with SAE
standards.
SAE has several standards published and many documents in development by a variety of car,
motorcycle, pedestrian, and truck and bus committees relating to increasing safety and efficiency of
transport. While work continues to improve passive safety and crashworthiness of vehicles, the potential
3
of implementing technological solutions to avoid or reduce the severity of crashes is a major focus of
our members’ committee activities. These efforts encompass active safety systems, driver assistances
systems, cybersecurity, vehicle connectivity and communications, measurement and test devices, vehicle
testing including safe on-road testing of automated driving systems, and specific to today’s hearing’s
title, SAE International’s standard J3016: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road
Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems.
This Recommended Practice originally published in 2014 and revised last September, and referenced in
the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy provides stakeholders including Federal, state, and
local/municipal legislators, regulators and policy-makers with a taxonomy describing the full range of
levels (SAE 0 through 5) of driving automation in on-road motor vehicles. This includes functional
definitions for advanced levels of driving automation and related terms and definitions. This
Recommended Practice does not provide specifications, or otherwise impose requirements on, driving
automation systems. Standardizing levels of driving automation and supporting terms serves several
purposes, including:
• Clarifying the role of the (human) driver, if any, during driving automation system engagement.
• Answering questions of scope when it comes to developing laws, policies, regulations, and standards.
• Providing a useful framework for driving automation specifications and technical requirements.
• Providing clarity and stability in communications on the topic of driving automation, as well as a
useful short-hand that saves considerable time and effort.
This document was developed per the following guiding principles:
• Be descriptive and informative rather than normative.
4
• Be consistent with current industry practice.
• Be consistent with prior art to the extent practicable.
• Be useful across disciplines, including engineering, law, media, public discourse.
• Be clear and cogent, provide functional definitions and avoid or define ambiguous terms.
SAE International’s Levels Of Automated Driving Automation For On-Road Vehicles:
SAE level
Name
Narrative Definition
Execution of Steering and Acceleration/ Deceleration
Monitoring of Driving Environment
Fallback Performance of Dynamic Driving Task
System Capability (Driving Modes)
Human driver monitors the driving environment
0 no
Automation
the full-time performance by the human driver of all
aspects of the dynamic driving task, even when enhanced
by warning or intervention systems
Human driver
Human driver
Human driver
n/a
1
Driver Assistance
the driving mode-specific execution by a driver assistance
system of either steering or acceleration/deceleration using information about the driving environment and with the expectation that the human driver perform all remaining
aspects of the dynamic driving task
Human driver
and system
Human driver
Human driver
Some driving
modes
2
Partial
Automation
the driving mode-specific execution by one or more driver
assistance systems of both steering and acceleration/
deceleration using information about the driving environment and with the expectation that the human
driver perform all remaining aspects of the dynamic driving task
System
Human driver
Human driver
Some driving
modes
Automated driving system (“system”) monitors the driving environment
3
conditional Automation
the driving mode-specific performance by an automated driving system of all aspects of the dynamic driving task
with the expectation that the human driver will respond
appropriately to a request to intervene
System
System
Human driver
Some driving
modes
4
high
Automation
the driving mode-specific performance by an automated
driving system of all aspects of the dynamic driving task,
even if a human driver does not respond appropriately to a
request to intervene
System
System
System
Some driving
modes
5
full
Automation
the full-time performance by an automated driving system
of all aspects of the dynamic driving task under all roadway
and environmental conditions that can be managed by a human driver
System
System
System
All driving
modes
5
SAE has been and will continue to work with states and commonwealths as we learn of their policy,
regulatory, and legislative activities regarding both the public on-road testing and the deployment of
vehicles with driver assistance and automated driving systems. For example, we have been working the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators members and staff, and participate and
contribute to their “Automated Vehicles Information Sharing Group”. We’re also members of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Transportation Autonomous Vehicle Testing Policy
Task Force and continue to work with several states regarding policy and regulations for testing of
automated driving systems on public roads. SAE staff and members have been involved with efforts in
California and Michigan, but many more states, commonwealths, and municipalities in the US are
developing policy, regulations and legislation in their departments of transportation, motor vehicle
administrations, and legislative bodies.
SAE was pleased that the US DOT and the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration
(NHTSA) adopted the SAE levels of automation in their September, 2016 “Federal Automated Vehicles
Policy”. Government entities, media, trade and consumer associations and the transportation/vehicle
industry were using SAE levels of automation or the differing NHTSA classification and some, both.
This incongruent usage has been one of the difficulties with communicating with stakeholders and
harmonizing policy efforts. An ongoing challenge is to expand the use of consistent terms, definitions,
and procedures via increasing the awareness of SAE’s resources, such as SAE J3016, SAE J3018:
Guidelines for Safe On-Road Testing of SAE Level 3, 4, and 5 Prototype Automated Driving Systems
(ADS), and other SAE International’s enabling standards and recommended practices to all levels and
branches of government.
Driver assistance and automated driving systems have the potential to provide substantial benefits to all
customers of road transport. SAE International’s wealth of knowledge and experience with existing and
6
developing standards in this area should be used by government, industry and academia to assist in the
technology and policy solutions necessary for the adoption of these life and property saving advances.
SAE International thanks the Subcommittee for this opportunity to provide a statement and welcomes
questions and requests for additional information.
Supplementing this statement, SAE International submits the following documents for the record:
Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, SAE J3016, Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to
Automated Driving Systems, issued January 2014, revised September 2016.
Automated & Connected Transportation Standards, An infographic from SAE International
Automated Driving, Levels of Driving Automation are Defined in New SAE International Standard
J3016
SAE International Global Ground Vehicle Standards Organization Chart
Testimony of Jeff Klei
President, North America Automotive Divisions
Continental AG
Energy and Commerce Committee
Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee
“Self Driving Cars: Levels of Automation”
March 28, 2017
Good morning Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of the Subcommittee
on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection. I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
today on behalf of Continental. My name is Jeff Klei, and I am the President of Continental Automotive
Systems in North America.
Continental is a leading Tier 1 supplier that develops intelligent technologies for transporting people
and their goods. We provide our automotive customers with sustainable, safe and affordable solutions
that enhance automotive safety. In 2016 we generated more than $43 billion in sales within our five
divisions, Chassis & Safety, Interior, Powertrain, Tires, and ContiTech. Continental employs more than
20,000 employees in the U.S at more than 80 facilities located in 26 states and has more than 220,000
employees in 55 countries worldwide.
In 2015 there were more than 35,000 lives lost in the U.S. due to traffic crashes. Projections for 2016
are expected to increase to more than 40,000 fatalities, a level we haven’t seen in a decade. While this is
an alarming number, it is even more startling at a global level—more than 1.2 million people die in
roadway crashes and another 50 million are injured. This is unacceptable and reversing this trend is what
motivates each and every employee at Continental.
In the last 45 years the U.S. has experienced a relative declining trend in traffic fatalities with respect
to an increased number of vehicles on the road and number of miles driven. This is due in large part to
improved vehicle safety technologies. In the early 1970s the number of injuries and fatalities were at an
all-time high. The introduction of the seat belt helped to reduce the total number of traffic fatalities by
10,000 in a few short years. In 1983, the number of fatalities was the lowest in 20 years due to the
introduction of anti-lock braking systems. As numbers began to rise again, the airbag became standard in
vehicles reducing injuries and fatalities down to its lowest number in 30 years. The introduction of
electronic stability control in the mid-1990s helped to reduce traffic accidents to the lowest number in 50
years. Continental projects new crash-avoidance technologies will once again reverse the recent increase
in fatalities as the auto industry moves toward a more widespread implementation of Advanced Driver
Assist Systems (ADAS).
Innovation has always been at the heart of the automotive industry. From the original concept of the
automobile in the late 1800s, the mass production lines pioneered in Detroit, to today, the automotive
industry has always invested in research and development to make their products safer, more reliable and
more affordable. Today, we are witnessing the automotive industry evolve from a crashworthiness
mindset, where manufacturers try to make the passenger cabin more survivable in the event of an
accident towards a crash avoidance mindset—after all, the best way to survive a crash is to avoid one in
the first place.
2
Continental, and our dedicated employees, are committed to developing Safe and Dynamic Driving
technologies towards Vision Zero. Vision Zero means a future with zero traffic fatalities, injuries and
ultimately zero accidents. Such a future can only be achieved with the help of innovative active and
passive safety, driver assistance, and automated driving technologies. As Continental brings these
technologies to market, we exhaustively test products, and subsystems, as part of a larger system of
advanced driving assistance technologies that will be integrated with a variety of components by original
equipment manufacturers.
Our Vision Zero philosophy is embedded in each technology we develop as we continue to enable
automated driving. At Continental, we describe our systems approach through three primary actions—
sense, plan, and act. Whether the technology simply assists the driver like many systems on the road
today, or ultimately takes over the driving task completely, it first must SENSE the surrounding
environment and gather the necessary data that can be interpreted. Sophisticated sensor systems can help
eliminate human error and distractions by providing 360-degree awareness of the road at all times. The
data gathered from the sensors is then analyzed to identify obstacles or hazards. Our systems then
dynamically develop a PLAN to determine how to assist the driver. Once that plan is in place, the
systems will ACT to execute the plan to safely and comfortably pilot the vehicle and in certain cases
avoid a hazard or crash situation. Our Sense, Plan, Act approach is the foundation behind Continental’s
active safety and Advanced Driver Assistance System technology, and is a key component to advancing
automated driving systems. We believe that when fully automated driving is possible, traffic fatalities
can be reduced by 90 percent because that is the percentage of accidents that are caused by human error.
Continental has been an active participant globally in policy discussions and initiatives with
governments, automotive industry partners, trade associations and other standard setting organizations.
The collaborative efforts to help establish consistency within the emerging self-driving market has been
crucial to the advancement of automated driving technologies. Continental is currently engaged with the
Department of Transportation’s Smart Cities Program. Several of our divisions are working together to
develop a highly sophisticated intersection in Columbus, Ohio, with vehicle and integrated infrastructure
technologies that will help save the lives of vehicle occupants as well as pedestrians while improving
transportation efficiency in urban environments. We support the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s recent adoption of the SAE International definitions of automation, as we believe it is
beneficial to helping educate the public in order to distinguish between different automated technologies
and garner public acceptance.
Continental is one of the leading suppliers in this market, with a complete portfolio of technologies
for all defined levels of automation. Each innovative safety feature undergoes an extensive testing
process before becoming available to the market. As a supplier, we currently develop a multitude of
innovative technologies that can save lives and enhance the driving experience under the Level 0 to
Level 2 definitions of automation. These products are designed based on the needs of our customers to
assist the driver in interpreting the surrounding environment and control the vehicle in order to prevent
an accident from occurring.
Continental has been integral in the deployment of current crash avoidance technologies such as lane
keep assist, rear back up assist, automatic emergency braking, and adaptive cruise control, to name a few.
These crash avoidance technologies are the building blocks to higher levels of automated driving and
need to be embraced as crash avoidance technologies that save lives. All of these technologies can be
found throughout the fleets of most vehicle manufacturers.
3
As the industry moves forward towards Level 3 automation technology and beyond, Continental is
positioned to supply public and personal transportation needs with the safest and most advanced
technology available on the market. The world and the behavior of drivers within it are ever changing,
and the vehicle must adapt to these changing trends. Our children seem to rely on smartphones more so
than vehicles. Living in a world of distractions has become commonplace. Automotive technology must
be developed accordingly. That is why Continental has put a great deal of effort into Human Machine
Interface technology. We want the driver to be aware of their surroundings, be aware of what the
systems in the vehicle are doing, and be aware of when it is safe to relinquish control of the vehicle and
when to reengage with the vehicle. In addition to informing the occupants, keeping them safe, and
pedestrians safe, we must also secure the systems within the vehicle. As part of system development for
Highly Automated Driving, we focus on redundancy of vehicle safety systems. That is why we are
developing complimentary systems and technologies that support existing safety systems in the vehicle’s
architecture.
Since 2011, we have continued a pursuit of testing and developing highly automated driving with
next generation technologies like automated parking, cruising chauffeur and a complete self-driving
vehicle in combination with V2V/V2X technology. We were the first supplier in the U.S. to be awarded
a testing license for automated vehicles in Nevada and are currently testing our third generation
automated vehicle on highways and roads throughout the country and around the world. We are
currently integrating sophisticated technologies such as high resolution flash lidar, which will expand the
vehicle’s detection capabilities. This is the same technology that has been deployed on space shuttles at
the most advanced technical level, and we are working to utilize its potential for road applications. But,
our continued efforts in this direction would benefit greatly from an investment in infrastructure that
promotes vehicle to X communication, a dedicated spectrum communication band that can be utilized by
current and future safety systems, and harmonization of safety laws that allows for the full real world
testing of these technologies.
The challenges in broadly testing this new and innovative safety technology across the country are
great. The industry currently faces considerable uncertainty on state and federal requirements that would
require clarification from the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate all motor vehicles.
The safe commercial deployment of potential life saving technology depends on the ability to extensively
test on public roads under all conditions. In order to envision a future of full automation, the government
must review federal motor vehicle safety standards that would allow for vehicles that may not be under
the full control of a driver at all times. Similar to the need of improved road conditions as automobiles
transitioned from rural landscapes to metropolitan areas in the early 1900s, we need a road infrastructure
that complements automotive advancements, and a legal framework that supports a new system of
mobility.
The automotive world is one of excitement. Software developers are becoming automotive suppliers,
automotive companies are becoming software developers, and our vehicles are becoming our smart-
device. The world of mobility has the capability of expanding to unimaginable independence and
personal freedom without sacrificing the safety of future generations. Continental stands at the ready,
alongside our industry colleagues, to work with the Committee and Congress in helping construct laws
that foster innovation, enable mobility, and create a safer environment for the public.
Thank you again, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, members of the Subcommittee on
Digital Commerce and Consumer protection and staff, for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.
Testimony of Dr. Kay Stepper
Vice President for Automated Driving and Driver Assistance
Systems
Chassis Systems Control
Robert Bosch LLC
Hearing on
Self-Driving Cars: Levels of Automation
House Energy & Commerce Committee
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
United State House of Representatives
March 28, 2017
Robert Bosch LLC
Testimony before the House Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
March 28, 2017
Background
As a global Tier One supplier, Bosch is working diligently to make Automated Driving
a reality. We currently employ more than 2,500 engineers working worldwide on the
topics of automated driving and advanced driver assistance.
Key Areas
Automated Driving and Innovation: Continued federal collaboration and support for
research and testing is vital to keeping the U.S. and the automotive industry at the
forefront of technological innovation. Lawmakers and regulators should permit the
safe and responsible testing of advanced safety and automated technologies on
public roads. The Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, issued by NHTSA in 2016,
represents an important step forward but critical issues must still be addressed.
Driver Assistance / Crash Avoidance Systems: The automotive industry continues
to develop and bring to market innovative safety technologies that have made a
significant difference in reducing fatality and injury rates. Adoption rates, however,
remain low and additional actions must be taken to encourage the installation of
these technologies.
Consumer Education and NCAP: The U.S. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
is the leading mechanism through which the federal government communicates
vehicle safety information to consumers. Although the NHTSA has proposed an
update to NCAP, the current NCAP model, which is focused solely on
crashworthiness and rollover propensity, is outdated and should be modernized.
Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is Kay Stepper, Vice President with responsibility for the
Driver Assistance and Automated Driving Systems for Bosch in the United
States. At Bosch we are proud to be “Invented for Life” and I am honored
to discuss an issue that is one of the pillars of our everyday work at Bosch:
to save lives.
Robert Bosch founded the company in 1886, when he opened the
“Workshop for Precision Mechanics and Electrical Engineering” in
Stuttgart, Germany. Today, the Bosch group of companies employ more
than 390,000 associates around the globe, including nearly 18,000 in the
United States.
Bosch has a long history in the United States. In fact, the U.S. played
a pivotal role in the history of Robert Bosch himself. At the age of just 23,
he ventured across the Atlantic, traveling to the U.S. to work with Edison
and gain insights into electrical engineering. He subsequently established
an office in New York City in 1906. Now, in 2017, Bosch companies
operate more than 100 manufacturing, development, sales, service and
administrative sites across the country with a significant presence in
Michigan, South Carolina, Illinois, California, Wisconsin, and Kentucky.
We also have three dedicated Research and Development Centers in the
U.S.; they are located in Pittsburgh, PA; Cambridge, MA and Palo Alto,
CA.
Bosch has four business sectors – Mobility Solutions, Energy and
Building Technology; Consumer Goods; and Industrial Technology.
Mobility solutions is our largest sector, comprising approximately 60
percent of our business and representing 217,000 associates.
Bosch is very active at every level of autonomous driving. As a Tier
One full systems supplier, Bosch understands the entire automated driving
system from requirements derivation to turn-key solutions. Ranging from
individual components such as sensors, electronic control units, brake
systems, steering, to the overall system, we develop and supply almost
every element required for automated driving. Bosch is the world’s largest
manufacturer of MEMS and radar sensors and a leading global
manufacturer of mono- and stereo-vision cameras, ultrasonic sensors,
braking and steering systems. With this broad product reach, combined
with our expertise in cybersecurity protection, Bosch is uniquely positioned
to help drive the creation of a full system approach for our customers.
Bosch is advancing artificial intelligence. At the Bosch
Connected World 2017 conference in Berlin, Bosch presented an onboard
computer for automated vehicles. Thanks to artificial intelligence (AI), the
computer can apply machine learning methods. The AI onboard computer
is expected to guide self-driving cars through even complex traffic
situations, or ones that are new to the car.
Bosch believes that automated driving is the future of mobility and
“Leading the way to safe, agile and automated driving” is our guiding
principle. Bosch has more than 2,500 engineers working worldwide on the
topics of automated driving and advanced driver assistance in order to
achieve this goal and our autonomous driving testing is conducted in the
U.S., Germany, Japan, and Australia.
Accident statistics indicate that more than 90 percent of all crashes
are caused by human error. A forward-thinking vehicle which takes over
dedicated driving tasks could make the vision of injury and collision-free
driving a reality. NHTSA’s preliminary numbers for the first nine months of
2016 show that an estimated 27,875 people died in crashes – an eight
percent increase over the first 9 months of 2015.1 Preliminary 2016 data
from the National Safety Council projects that as many as 40,000 people
died in motor vehicle crashes last year.2
The magnitude of this safety crisis is such that we must seek active
means to increase deployment of technologies that can support drivers
and reduce accident and injury rates. Driver assistance systems such as
Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) and Blind Spot Detection (BSD) can
assist in reducing the rising fatality and injury numbers that we are facing
in the United States today. In the near term, it is critical that government
and industry continue to work together to help increase consumer access
to and understanding of these advanced technologies.
In January 2017, Bosch released a study “Connected Car Effect
2025”3 which investigated what mobility technology will mean specifically
for the US, Germany and the major cities of China. The result: safety
systems and cloud-based functions can prevent around 260,000 injury
accidents, save 390,000 tons of CO2 emissions and offer drivers many
hours of more time for other activities. Over 260,000 accidents involving
personal injuries (US: 210,000, China: 20,000, Germany: 30,000) will be
avoided annually – as many accidents as occur within two years in
Germany’s capital city of Berlin. The Study predicted that 350,000 fewer
people would be injured by traffic accidents – the same as 12 years without
traffic injuries in Los Angeles. In the US alone, there will be 290,000 fewer
(China: 25,000, Germany: 37,000).
I commend the Committee for calling this hearing and for focusing
its attention on two topics that lie at the heart of this transformation in
1 DOT HS 812 358: A Brief Statistical Summary - Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities For the First 9 Months of 2016; January 2017 2 National Safety Council Press Release, February 15, 2017, “Motor Vehicle Deaths in 2016 Estimated to be Highest in Nine Years” 3 “Connected Car Effect 2025” conducted by Bosch and the consulting firm Prognos, January 2017
vehicle mobility: the levels of automation and the importance of the
deployment of driver assistance systems as a foundation for automated
driving. Unfortunately, these topics are often overlooked within the overall
dialogue about Automated Driving. The truth is that many drivers and
passengers are already experiencing the benefits of vehicle automation
every day. The active safety system Electronic Stability Control (ESC) is
integrated into every new passenger car sold in the United States. This
revolutionary technology, invented by Bosch engineer Dr. Anton van
Zanten, has saved thousands of lives. A 2014 report from NHTSA found
that ESC saved close to 4,000 lives during the 5-year period from 2008 to
2012 4 . The technology works by monitoring driver intent and vehicle
direction and by automatically applying braking force as needed to prevent
a loss of control. Most drivers are not even aware of its support. This
intervention is communicated to the driver as a mere flash of the indicator
light on the dash, but the real world result is often a life saved or a serious
injury mitigated.
Automated driving will bring great benefits and pave the path toward
a new vision of personal and collective transportation. However, it will take
time to achieve fully automated driving and it will be an evolutionary
process, building upon the stepping stones of active safety, driver
assistance and crash avoidance systems. The first wave is already here
in the form of driver assistance systems that utilize automation to increase
safety. The next phase will consist of partially-automated functions, such
as traffic jam assist, which are available in the market but not deployed in
great numbers.
In discussing the evolution toward Automated Driving, I want to
emphasize that Bosch strongly supports NHTSA’s decision to adopt the
4 DOT HS 812 042, June 2014, Estimating Lives Saved by Electronic Stability Control, 2008–2012
SAE International (SAE) J3016 framework for levels of automation as part
of the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. This is a major step toward
harmonizing and establishing a common set of definitions across the
various stakeholders involved in these efforts. Without a common
taxonomy and understanding of the different levels of automation, it will be
considerably more difficult to make the necessary strides toward full
automation. In fact, the lack of a common “language” and standardized
descriptions is one of the obstacles that has hindered the understanding
and adoption of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).
A 2015 study conducted by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), on
behalf of the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA),
determined that the widespread installation of ADAS technologies could
prevent about 9,900 fatalities each year and save more than $250 billion
annually in societal costs5 in the United States. The BCG found that, at
that time, ADAS features were not present in a high number of vehicles
and that their share of the U.S. market was growing at only 2 to 5 percent
annually.
Bosch wishes to highlight Automatic Emergency Braking as one
clear example of how drivers are being introduced to automation in a
gradual manner and also of how automation and intervention by the
vehicle can provide the greatest benefit in terms of accident reduction. The
full suite of AEB, also known as Crash Imminent Braking, consists of three
technologies. The first is Forward Collision Warning which simply alerts
the driver to the fact that he/she is getting very close to the vehicle in front
of them. The next stage technology, termed by NHTSA as Dynamic Brake
Support, actually prepares the brakes and pre-fills them so that the driver
will immediately have full braking power when he/she engages the brakes
5 A Roadmap to Safer Driving Through Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), Boston Consulting Group, September 2015
to slow or stop the vehicle. The driver does not feel a demonstrable
difference in the brake but he/she receives enhanced braking power to
reduce the stopping distance. AEB is the last technology in this cascade.
If the driver takes no action, then the system engages the brakes on its
own and stops the vehicle to prevent or mitigate the crash.
These types of crashes remain a leading safety concern in the
United States. Bosch’s internal analysis of NHTSA’s 2013 NASS6 data
indicated that approximately 33 percent of collisions with injuries and
fatalities were rear-end crashes. Most drivers believe that they are
observant and fully aware of their surroundings, but Bosch’s research
found that drivers often fail to detect the obstacle in rear end crashes. In
cases where the driver did detect the obstacle, approximately 49 percent
of the drivers failed to apply adequate braking force in order to avoid the
collision. Further, 31 percent of drivers failed to even apply the brakes at
all. This cascade approach optimizes the system’s ability to support and
assist the driver. It exemplifies the manner in which increasing levels of
automation can help to supplement the driver’s own abilities.
Bosch, together with its customers and other suppliers, has also
devoted considerable resources to tackling the growing safety problem of
pedestrian fatalities and injuries. Technology, in the form of advanced
pedestrian detection and braking technologies, offers us the opportunity to
notably mitigate and, in some cases, prevent crashes involving vulnerable
road users. In 2015 there were 5,376 pedestrians killed in traffic crashes
in the U.S., a 9.5 percent increase from the 4,910 pedestrian fatalities in
2014. This figure represents the highest number of pedestrians killed
annually since 1996. On average, a pedestrian was killed nearly every 1.6
hours and injured more than every 7.5 minutes in traffic crashes in 2015.7
6 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) 7 DOT HS 812 375, NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts, February 2017
Bosch has developed forward pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking
systems as well as rear Automatic Braking systems to address these types
of crashes. We are applying the same strategies utilized in AEB,
cascading from a driver warning to a full automatic intervention. Also, as
mentioned before, Bosch has been developing Artificial Intelligence for
use in vehicle automation. Bosch’s AI onboard computer can recognize
pedestrians or cyclists.
Suppliers play an important role in the innovation cycle and many
established suppliers, such as Bosch, conduct extensive testing in the lab,
on test tracks, and on public roads. These activities are integral to the
development and maturity of the technology needed for automated driving.
Our engineers conduct extensive track testing and simulation work; but
nothing can replace the importance of on the road testing and validation.
In addition, these efforts are intrinsic to enabling suppliers to develop their
own robust and comprehensive offerings for OEMs and support the
competitive challenge to deliver the most effective and cost-sensitive
software options for automakers. Prohibitions and delays that impede on-
road testing will slow this process at the supplier level and; thereby, inhibit
the overall progression of automated driving technology. For Bosch,
reliability and robustness are the top priorities when it comes to safety
systems. This requires the use of thoroughly tested and approved software.
Bosch emphasizes that these development vehicles are driven exclusively
by trained test drivers at Bosch and equipped with special safety concepts
to enable the driver to reassert control at any time. After a successful
release procedure on test tracks, we take the system on public roads to
conduct evaluations in a real environment but always under supervision of
a trained driver accompanied by a test engineer monitoring the system.
Suppliers presently face several obstacles in carrying out this testing
on public roads and we respectfully request that the Committee consider
extending the FAST Act exemption to include suppliers with active and
established research and development programs in the U.S.
Bosch has been a passionate advocate for the deployment of driver
assistance systems. We continue to view these technologies as the most
effective and immediate means to reducing fatalities and injuries. We have
worked diligently as a company to make these systems more accessible
to all consumers. By developing cost effective components, such as
Bosch’s mid-range radar sensor, we have sought to support the
distribution of these systems to all makes and models of passenger
vehicles. Series production of Bosch radar sensors began in 2000. In 2016,
Bosch delivered its ten-millionth radar sensor.
Bosch’s position on the need for improved consumer education is
well known. We have urged NHTSA and the U.S. Department of
Transportation for many years to include crash avoidance systems as a
key component of the vehicle 5-star rating and to provide additional
information to consumers through the Monroney Label. Bosch believes
that displaying crash avoidance systems as part of the official safety
portion of the Monroney Label, and particularly in the form a five star rating,
is the most effective means to help drive consumer awareness and
eventually consumer demand for such technologies. Without the clear
presence of crash avoidance and mitigation technologies on the most
recognizable feature for consumers - the physical Monroney Label as
affixed to the vehicle – consumer education will continue to lag.
Support for the proposed inclusion of crash avoidance technologies
was also confirmed by prominent groups such as the National Safety
Council and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in their formal
responses to the NHTSA proposed NCAP update, issued in December
2015.
The adoption of crash avoidance technologies into NCAP would be
a very significant improvement and one which we believe will help bring
about immediate benefits, as well as paving the path toward the attainment
of automated driving in the future. Based on Bosch’s analysis of the 2013
NASS data, crash avoidance technologies such as forward collision
warning, automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, lane
keeping systems, blind spot detection, lane change assist and pedestrian
crash avoidance systems have the potential to avoid or mitigate up to 64
percent of passenger car and light-duty truck collisions resulting in injuries
and fatalities in the United States.
As part of the proposed NCAP update issued in December 2015,
NHTSA had proposed separate ratings for crash avoidance and
pedestrian protection, as well as a combined overall vehicle rating. Bosch
acknowledges that there were many issues that still need to be addressed
and fleshed out as part of the proposals and we are aware that many
entities raised legitimate concerns relative to the proposed changes to the
crashworthiness section of the proposal. Our intent is simply to encourage
Congress and NHTSA to cooperate and find a path forward for the U.S.
NCAP to become an effective means of encouraging the enhanced
adoption of these life-saving systems. Bosch truly believes that a five star
rating is the most effective means to translate the presence and
performance of crash avoidance technologies into an easy-to-understand
indicator for consumers.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak before the
Committee. I welcome any questions you may have.
Statement before the United States House of
Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce;
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
Protection
What today’s advanced driver assistance systems can
tell us about the self-driving future
March 28, 2017
David S. Zuby Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 1 1005 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22201 March 28, 2017
Summary
The United States has made enormous progress in reducing the toll from motor vehicle crashes,
thanks to safer vehicles, better laws and enforcement, and traffic engineering improvements. Of those
factors, vehicle improvements have played the biggest role in recent years. In contrast, efforts to
reduce crashes by changing driver behavior have largely stalled.
Automation is the next frontier in vehicle improvements and could one day address the problem of
human behavior by taking it out of the equation completely. That day remains far in the future,
however.
Experiences with existing crash avoidance technologies can give us some clues regarding the
potential benefits and pitfalls of emerging automation technologies. IIHS research has documented
safety benefits from some features, including electronic stability control and automatic braking. On the
other hand, studies of insurance claims have not found consistent benefits from lane departure
warning systems. These results show how crucial it will be to monitor new technologies to see if they
deliver on their promise. Policies to help ensure the availability of information about which specific
vehicles are equipped with which features would help researchers track the effectiveness of driver
assistance systems.
Driver attitudes toward technologies will be key to ensuring new features reach their potential. Our
research has shown that driver acceptance of technology varies.
We expect driving automation to enter the market gradually. During these years of technical evolution,
some drivers may fail to understand the limitations of the systems and become overly reliant on them.
New features should be designed in such a way as to make their limitations clear.
While automation has the potential to greatly reduce the toll from crashes, it would be a mistake to
focus on it to the exclusion of proven countermeasures. Things like lower speed limits and strict
enforcement of seat belt laws can provide benefits now, while we await the self-driving future.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 2 1005 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22201 March 28, 2017
Introduction
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and its sister organization, the Highway Loss Data
Institute (HLDI), are nonprofit research institutes that identify ways to reduce deaths, injuries, and
property damage on our highways. We are wholly supported by voluntary contributions from companies
that sell automobile insurance in the U.S. and Canada. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
emerging automated driving technologies.
The United States has made enormous progress in reducing motor vehicle crash deaths over the past
half a century. A combination of safer vehicles, better laws and enforcement of those laws, and traffic
engineering improvements have cut the rate of crash deaths per population to nearly half of what it was in
1975.1 The rate of crash fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled is one-third the rate in 1980.
Out of all these types of countermeasures, it is vehicle improvements — including more crashworthy
structures, front and side airbags and electronic stability control (ESC) — that have driven most of the
decline in driver death rates since the mid-1990s.2 In contrast, efforts to reduce crashes by changing
driver behavior have largely stalled. Speeding, alcohol-impaired driving and lack of safety belt use all
remain persistent problems.
Automation is the next frontier in vehicle improvements and could also address the problem of driver
behavior. Full automation has the potential to make the human propensity to make poor decisions and
errors irrelevant. In a study of police-reported crashes occurring during 2005-07 where at least one
vehicle was towed from the scene, researchers found that a driver’s error or physical state had led to 94
percent of the crashes.3 If automation can eliminate all crashes involving driver-related factors, then
thousands of lives will be saved each year.
At the moment and for the foreseeable future, however, human drivers are still a key part of the equation.
The safety potential of partial automation will be limited in large part by the way human drivers interact
with driver assistance systems on their own vehicles and with fully automated vehicles with which they
may share the road.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 3 1005 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22201 March 28, 2017
What we can learn from existing crash avoidance features
Although full driving automation for most vehicles remains far in the future, crash avoidance features that
automatically assume control over vehicle motion when drivers fail to adequately respond to crash
hazards aren’t new. These include ESC and automatic braking systems. Our research has already
documented injury-preventing benefits of these features.
ESC, which has been required on all new passenger vehicles since the 2012 model year, helps prevents
sideways skidding and loss of control. The technology reduces the risk of a fatal single-vehicle crash by
49 percent and cuts the risk of a fatal multiple-vehicle crash by 20 percent for cars and SUVs.4 Its
effectiveness in preventing rollover crashes is even more dramatic. Years ago, SUVs were considered
dangerous vehicles because their high centers of gravity made them prone to rolling over. That is no
longer the case, thanks to ESC, which reducing the risk of fatal single-vehicle rollover crashes by 75
percent for SUVs and by 72 percent for cars.4
More recently, automatic control of vehicle brakes has proven to be an effective countermeasure against
front-to-rear crashes. Front crash prevention is our name for systems that can detect an impending
collision with the vehicle in front and warns the driver to brake, automatically brakes on its own or
performs a combination of these functions. In a study of police-reported front-to-rear crashes, we found
that systems with automatic braking reduce rear-end crashes by about 50 percent.5 Studies by HLDI of
insurance claim rates have also shown benefits for front crash prevention systems with and without
automatic braking.6,7,8,9,10,11,
Despite these success stories, not all crash avoidance features have been shown to be effective. For
example, HLDI examined the effectiveness of lane departure warning systems from six manufacturers
and did not find any consistent changes in rates of insurance claims covering damage to at-fault vehicles,
which is the type of claim that would likely follow a single-vehicle run-off-road crash.7,9,12,13
The disparate results for the effects of crash avoidance technologies point to one of our concerns about
driving automation — namely, that there is no guarantee that the technology will deliver on its promise.
Consequently, it will be important to continually monitor the effects on safety of new technologies entering
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 4 1005 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22201 March 28, 2017
the market. The studies mentioned above were only possible with the close cooperation of a few
automakers who helped us identify by Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) the specific vehicles that were
equipped with a range of optional features. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive database linking
VINs to information about what features are present on a given vehicle. Government policies aimed at
ensuring the availability of such data for highway safety research would greatly enhance our ability to
study the effectiveness of emerging technologies.
Driver attitudes
Collision avoidance and driving automation systems can’t reach their crash-reduction potential if drivers
don’t use or respond appropriately to them. A recent IIHS observational study illustrates how driver
attitudes toward advanced driver assistance systems can vary depending on how the feature is
implemented.14 We observed vehicles from eight manufacturers brought to dealership service centers to
see if their front crash prevention and lane-maintenance systems (i.e., lane-departure warning, lane-
departure prevention or active lane-keeping) were turned on. While front crash prevention was activated
in 93 percent of vehicles we observed, lane-maintenance systems were turned on in only 51 percent of
vehicles.
We also studied driver trust in advanced technologies in a more direct way by inviting our own employees
to drive vehicles equipped with adaptive cruise control, forward collision warning, lane-departure warning,
active lane-keeping and side-view assist systems. Fifty-four employees took part in this study, using the
vehicles for days or weeks at a time for both commuting and longer trips. Overall, drivers did not express
strong trust in any of the technologies.15 Trust was highest for side-view assist and lowest for active lane-
keeping. Trust in adaptive cruise control and side-view assist varied among vehicles.
Pitfalls of partial automation
No matter how quickly technology develops, it will take at least 25 years before nearly all vehicles on U.S.
roads have today’s latest technology. This estimate is based on a HLDI study that examined how long it
takes for new features to be present in 95 percent of registered vehicles.16 Thus, if the government were
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 5 1005 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22201 March 28, 2017
to require that all new vehicles sold in the U.S. be fully automated starting tomorrow, it would still be 2042
before nearly all vehicles on the roads were fully automated.
More realistically, we think driving automation will enter the market in a piecemeal fashion. Over time
more and more of the driving task will be able to be automated. During these years of technical evolution,
we are concerned that some human drivers will fail to understand the limitations of the systems on their
vehicles and crash because they are overly reliant on them. Driving automation systems should be
designed in ways that make their limitations clear to human operators.
It is also worth noting that partial automation may be of limited benefit in many kinds of crashes. We
recently examined records of crashes caused by drivers drifting from their lanes. We found that 34
percent of drivers in lane-drift crashes were asleep or otherwise incapacitated because of a medical issue
or alcohol or drug use.17 For those drivers, lane-maintenance systems would have little relevance. Even if
these vehicles had been brought back into their lanes, they likely would have crashed ultimately. To be
effective in such cases, a crash avoidance system would have to bring the vehicle to a stop on the side of
the road.
Finally, there is the issue of autonomous vehicles sharing the road with human drivers. Our study of
crashes on public roads involving Google’s self-driving cars shows that even high-performing self-driving
vehicles will still be struck by vehicles driven by humans.18 We reviewed 19 crashes involving Google self-
driving cars traveling in autonomous mode. In most of the incidents, the Google car was rear-ended by
another vehicle.
Other opportunities to reduce crash deaths and injuries
Our work at IIHS and HLDI is guided by a rubric known as the Haddon matrix. Developed by William
Haddon Jr., the nation’s first highway safety chief and president of IIHS from 1969 to 1985, the matrix
reminds public health practitioners and policymakers that there are often multiple opportunities to treat a
public health problem such as motor vehicle crashes.
Improvements in vehicle safety have been effective in reducing crash deaths in recent decades, and
increasing automation is the next logical step in those efforts. However, it would be a mistake to focus on
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 6 1005 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22201 March 28, 2017
those opportunities to the exclusion of proven countermeasures. Lower speed limits, strict enforcement of
seat belt laws and prohibitions on alcohol-impaired driving, and safer road designs are just some of the
tools that could be used to reduce the toll from crashes while we wait for the benefits of driving
automation.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 7 1005 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22201 March 28, 2017
References
1. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Yearly snapshot 2015. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-
statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts. Accessed on March 23, 2017.
2. Farmer, C. M.; Lund, A.K. 2015. The effects of vehicle redesign on the risk of driver death. Traffic
Injury Prevention 16(7): 684-690.
3. Singh, S. 2015. Critical reasons for crashes investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash
Causation Survey. Traffic Safety Facts, Report no. DOT HS 812 115. Washington, DC: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
4. Farmer, C. M. 2010. Effects of electronic stability control on fatal crash risk. Arlington, VA: Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety.
5. Cicchino, J. B. 2017. Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking
systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates. Accident Analysis and Prevention 99(Part A): 142-152.
6. Highway Loss Data Institute. 2016. Fiat Chrysler collision avoidance features: initial results. Loss
Bulletin 33(2). Arlington, VA.
7. Highway Loss Data Institute. 2016. 2013-15 Honda Accord collision avoidance features. Loss Bulletin
33(32). Arlington, VA.
8. Highway Loss Data Institute. 2016. Mercedes-Benz collision avoidance features — a 2016 update.
Loss Bulletin 33(23). Arlington, VA.
9. Highway Loss Data Institute. 2012. Volvo collision avoidance features: initial results. Loss Bulletin
29(5). Arlington, VA.
10. Highway Loss Data Institute. 2016. Acura collision avoidance features — a 2016 update. Loss Bulletin
33(19). Arlington, VA.
11. Highway Loss Data Institute. 2016. 2013-15 Subaru collision avoidance features. Loss Bulletin 33(30).
Arlington, VA.
12. Highway Loss Data Institute. 2012. Mercedes-Benz collision avoidance features: initial results. HLDI
Bulletin 29(7). Arlington, VA.
13. Highway Loss Data Institute. 2016. Mazda collision avoidance features: an update. HLDI Bulletin
33(3). Arlington, VA.
14. Reagan, I.J.; Cicchino, J.B.; Kerfoot, L. B.; and Weast, R.A. 2017. Crash avoidance and driver
assistance system technologies – are they used? Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety.
15. Kidd, D.G.; Cicchino, J.B.; Reagan; I.J.; and Kerfoot, L.B. In press. Driver trust in five driver assistance
technologies following real-world use in four production vehicles. Traffic Injury Prevention.
16. Highway Loss Data Institute. 2015. Predicted availability of safety features on registered vehicles — a
2015 update. HLDI Bulletin 32(16). Arlington, VA.
17. Cicchino, J. B.; Zuby, D.S. In press. Prevalence of driver physical factors leading to unintentional lane
departure crashes. Traffic Injury Prevention.
18. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 2016. Special issue: autonomous vehicles. Status Report
51(8). Arlington, VA.